Pages

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Thanks to Senate Bill 1878, women in Oklahoma who want to get an abortion, first have to have a medically unnecessary ultrasound. Even in cases of rape or incest, these women will be forced to have an instrument placed in their vagina and view the fetus. And why? What will this accomplish other than increased anxiety (especially in cases of rape and incest), cost, and embarassment? "Sen. Jim Wilson (D) said the state could reduce abortions by eliminating poverty and providing better education. "We see these bills every year, and we don't make any progress," Wilson said, adding, 'All we do is demean women and beat people up, and we think somehow we can stop abortions from happening.'"Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

Anonymous: regardless, the notion is to guilt trip a patient which for medical professionals who have taken certain oaths, and are earning a living by supposedly living up to those oaths, is not ethical.

Furthermore, no form of birth control is 100% effective. And for the fundies that will say abstinence is, I will remind them of the virgin birth that they so devoutly believe occurred.

"egardless, the notion is to guilt trip a patient which for medical professionals who have taken certain oaths, and are earning a living by supposedly living up to those oaths, is not ethical."

What's unethical about fully informed consent?

If a woman is resolute in her decision, seeing the fetus won't change anything. When I see the arguments against the ultrasounds, they never come from a place that makes logical sense, and come off sounding like you're worried that women might not get enough abortions.

"And for the fundies that will say abstinence is"

Lots more people than fundies say abstinence is. I don't want kids. At all. Ergo, I do not have sex. It works well for me.

Maybe it sounds like crazy talk to you, but I don't need sex to live. I require food, water, shelter, and sleep. Nowhere in there is sex.

"Anonymous, the info I was reading (and linked to, please read links) said that the ultrasound would involve invasive instruments in the vagina."

Well, the majority of ultrasounds don't require it. It's not as though an abortion won't require, you know, invasive things in the vagina.

Anonymous, the purpose, though, of an invasive procedure prior to an abortion (which is what women in these cases would want), is to basically shame them out of it. Why have two separate occasions of doctors getting inside you instead of only one, which would provide you with the service you desired in the first place?

Also, I think it is wrong for you to say that because no sex works for you that it should work for everyone.

It's why, when I went to check out Lasik, they listed off a huge amount of truly horrible things that might happen to me if I had it done. Because of that, I chose not to do it.

It just sounds like people get worried that women might choose not to have an abortion.

Which is none of your business, really. They can do what they want, and if a woman might decide not to, because of an ultrasound, then she wasn't 100% certain of her decision in the first place.

As far as the sex thing, there is no reason why it can't work for anyone. Nobody needs it to continue living. It's not a life essential. It's also a decision that carries certain responsibilities and consequences.

Oklahoma already had another law requiring that doctors direct women to materials about fetal development. They were already full informed. This is just additional anti-choice legislation.

And sex between two consenting people is natural. Abstinence has not worked for any culture. Ever. I'm glad it is working for you, but you are a rare exception to what has been proved for thousands of years.

I consider sex a life essential. Sex and the intimacy and closeness that comes along with it.

Showing a woman who is not 100% sure about the choice of an abortion an ultrasound may convince her that she shouldn't have an abortion. However, they should also show women the financial costs of having and raising a child. Or show women the ultrasound and then show them financial support of their decision.

It's been said before but I'll say it again - Pro-life people are only concerned with the child up until it's born. Then the child and it's mother are own their own.

"They were already full informed. This is just additional anti-choice legislation."

Again, if a woman has her mind changed by such things, then it wasn't made up to begin with. These are not people telling her she can't have one. That would be anti-choice. You just continue to sound like you're afraid that some hidden abortion quota won't be met.

If you're all for women doing what they want, why care so much if they choose NOT to have an abortion? I see so many feminists that say they're pro-choice, but get really upset if a woman does NOT have an abortion, in any given situation.

"And sex between two consenting people is natural. Abstinence has not worked for any culture. Ever. I'm glad it is working for you, but you are a rare exception to what has been proved for thousands of years."

Don't use the "natural" argument, as it can be easily turned around on you. One could easily say that abortion is "unnatural", and therefore argue against it. Just like you're arguing against abstinence by calling it unnatural. Doesn't work very well when you look at it like that, does it?

Frankly, all you're doing is saying women and/or men have poor self control, and just can't help but have sex. It makes you look as though you have a rather low opinion of both.

"I consider sex a life essential. Sex and the intimacy and closeness that comes along with it."

Except it's not a life essential, no matter how much you might say otherwise. You will not die if you don't get it. I guarantee you this. You will live, and thrive, provided you give your body the things it really does require to live.

"Showing a woman who is not 100% sure about the choice of an abortion an ultrasound may convince her that she shouldn't have an abortion."

Which is what I see so many feminists freaking out about. It's as though they want to make sure an abortion occurs, and seem personally offended if a woman chooses not to have one.

"It's been said before but I'll say it again - Pro-life people are only concerned with the child up until it's born. Then the child and it's mother are own their own."

You and I both know that not all of them are like that.

Though, if you want to make generalizations, I could say "It's been said before but I'll say it again - Pro-Choice feminists are only concerned with the choice of a woman, provided she makes the choice they want her to."

"Except it's not a life essential, no matter how much you might say otherwise. You will not die if you don't get it."

Life is about more than simply being alive. Its about family, friends, giving love and receiving love.

"It's been said before but I'll say it again - Pro-Choice feminists are only concerned with the choice of a woman, provided she makes the choice they want her to."

This is so untrue. Why do you think feminists are on the forefront of the public childcare movement, the paternity leave movement, and the lowering of the cost of higher education? Because we care about children and women.

The problem with this legislation is that it is unnecessary. Women can request to have an ultrasound if they are still undecided about an abortion. But, to force women to receive an ultrasound, even though she is sure of her decision to have an abortion is cruel.

"Life is about more than simply being alive. Its about family, friends, giving love and receiving love."

Oh, come on now. Does Hallmark syrup really belong in an intelligent discussion? I don't mean to sound condescending with that remark, but that's incredibly cheesy.

"This is so untrue. Why do you think feminists are on the forefront of the public childcare movement, the paternity leave movement, and the lowering of the cost of higher education? Because we care about children and women."

You can say it's untrue, but I've seen enough feminist sites where they ostracize, or at least look down upon women that choose to have children.

In many cases, they get treated as traitors, or that they somehow sold out, or fell prey to societal expectations.

That, and it reeks of self-interest to say the paternity leave thing. The only reason a feminist would support it, would be because it's good for women, not for men.

If that was the reason a man supported feminism (personal benefit, not the benefit of others), he'd be ripped into by this community.

I don't care if you do something entirely out of self-interest, but be honest about it, at least.

"The problem with this legislation is that it is unnecessary. Women can request to have an ultrasound if they are still undecided about an abortion. But, to force women to receive an ultrasound, even though she is sure of her decision to have an abortion is cruel."

Lots of things in government and medicine are unnecessary. A great deal of it comes from covering one's own ass.

They're afraid of getting sued. They have to cover their bases. It's not cruel.

Why would it be cruel to have a woman have an ultrasound? If she would feel bad for the fetus, then her mind wasn't made up in the first place. Again, if she's resolute in her decision, it will not stop her, or even slow her down in getting precisely what she wants.

All it would take is one woman suing an abortion provider claiming she didn't really grasp the full impact of what she was doing, to mandate a nationwide requirement for ultrasounds, and not a damn thing would be done to stop it.

Except it's not a life essential, no matter how much you might say otherwise. You will not die if you don't get it. I guarantee you this. You will live, and thrive, provided you give your body the things it really does require to live.

I may live, but I will not thrive. Intimacy (and the accompanying sex) contributes to my well-being in immeasurable ways.

As for being for abortions, that isn't true. My bumper sticker on my car says "Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice." It's insulting to say that feminists just want a bunch of abortions.

Another issue with legislation like this (I'm not sure if it's the case for this one or not) is that after this unnecessary procedure, women have to pay for it, even if they didn't want it in the first place. It's twice as insulting - first your intelligence and than your wallet.

"I may live, but I will not thrive. Intimacy (and the accompanying sex) contributes to my well-being in immeasurable ways."

I refuse to believe that a person could be such a way. Your life revolves around sex? What an empty, meaningless state of being.

Not trying to sound too insulting there, but if you rate how good your life is by how often you get laid, that's a bit disordered.

"As for being for abortions, that isn't true. My bumper sticker on my car says "Pro-Child, Pro-Family, Pro-Choice." It's insulting to say that feminists just want a bunch of abortions."

Then why do so many feminists seem to get very upset if a woman chooses NOT to have one?

"Another issue with legislation like this (I'm not sure if it's the case for this one or not) is that after this unnecessary procedure, women have to pay for it, even if they didn't want it in the first place. It's twice as insulting - first your intelligence and than your wallet."

Considering if a woman chooses not to have an abortion, a man has to pay many, many thousands of dollars over the next 18-21 years, I refuse to hear any arguments complaining about a few hundred bucks.

Then why do so many feminists seem to get very upset if a woman chooses NOT to have one?

I think you're confusing an infringement of personal rights and choices with a desire to abort as many babies as possible. I think it displays a very simplistic approach to the whole topic to think so.

Not trying to sound too insulting there, but if you rate how good your life is by how often you get laid, that's a bit disordered.It's not that I rate my life by how good the sex is, but how much it contributes to the relationship I have with my partner and how that general happiness reflects on other areas of my life.

Considering if a woman chooses not to have an abortion, a man has to pay many, many thousands of dollars over the next 18-21 years, I refuse to hear any arguments complaining about a few hundred bucks.Oh, I'm so sorry! I forgot about the financial burden that men have when it comes to babies. God forbid we tread on man-territory.

And by the way, when you live in poverty, "a few hundred bucks" is no small amount.

"I'm not sure where you do your reading, but an ultrasound is performed by having a transducer placed directly on the body and moved around."Nothing is "placed in their vagina".

Actually, ultrasounds done in the early weeks of pregnancy (which is when these would take place) up until around 12 weeks are done vaginally, since what they're looking for is so small at these stages.

"It's not that I rate my life by how good the sex is, but how much it contributes to the relationship I have with my partner and how that general happiness reflects on other areas of my life."

I'm not saying how good, I'm saying how often.

It's just sad that you rate the quality of your life and personal relationships and your happiness, based on sleeping with someone.

You can't enjoy a relationship with a person unless you have sex?

"Oh, I'm so sorry! I forgot about the financial burden that men have when it comes to babies. God forbid we tread on man-territory."

Statements like this are why so many men find it so very hard to give one half of a damn about your issues. Because you demean and devalue ours, while claiming yours are FAR more important.

It makes it very easy to not care one whit about things you find important.

"And by the way, when you live in poverty, "a few hundred bucks" is no small amount."

Well, if you live in abject poverty, maybe you should re-align your priorities. Perhaps spend your time looking for a better job, finding ways to increase your income, instead of worrying about where your next lay is coming from?

Then again, I could easily say "When you live in poverty, paying child support is no small amount".

Point is, if you can't even afford birth control or condoms, maybe you shouldn't be having sex in the first place. It's not really my responsibility to care if you can't afford an abortion.

Sorry I've been missing out on this discussion, guys, and I thank everyone who has been contributing.

Anonymous (I'm assuming you're male from what I've read), I have a few rebuttals of my own to try:

You can say it's untrue, but I've seen enough feminist sites where they ostracize, or at least look down upon women that choose to have children.

For someone who claims to be so intune with what feminism is all about, you seem to be failing miserably to account for the fact that there are multiple feminisms (yes, plural). And I do not feel that the contributors to Female Impersonator can be generalized in a manner that would fit other feminist blogs exactly.

That, and it reeks of self-interest to say the paternity leave thing. The only reason a feminist would support it, would be because it's good for women, not for men.

Wrong. It would be good for the family. I don't think that it's ever fair for a family with two parents (be it man/woman, woman/womnan, or man/man) to have the majority of the parental responsibility fall on only one parent.

Also, I think it has already been stated that contraceptives are not 100% safe. So, Anonymous, are you saying that poor people should NEVER have sex because their contraceptives might break? And children are expensive?

"For someone who claims to be so intune with what feminism is all about, you seem to be failing miserably to account for the fact that there are multiple feminisms (yes, plural)."

How so? I accounted by saying "many" . Many stripes of feminism DO regard women that have children as a form of traitor.

"Wrong. It would be good for the family. I don't think that it's ever fair for a family with two parents (be it man/woman, woman/womnan, or man/man) to have the majority of the parental responsibility fall on only one parent."

Wrong. It would be good for the woman. It means she has less to do for a period of 6 weeks. It doesn't benefit the father of the child one bit. If I were stupid enough to have a wife/long term partner and children, I would refuse to take any sort of paternity leave. It wouldn't do me any good at all.

Six weeks off doesn't change the parental responsibility. By the very nature of being a woman, women are more suited to early childcare. You can call that sexist, you can argue it, but at the end of the day, men can't breastfeed. In terms of stay at home parenting, even temporarily, women are more suited. Sure, a woman could go to work, and the father could stay home and formula feed, but there's no arguing the benefit of proper breastfeeding, both in nutrition and bonding.

Besides which, financial responsibility is quite important as well. You make it sound as though the parent staying at work is doing nothing towards raising the child. That parent is why the child can eat, have a place to sleep, and clothing to wear.

"Also, I think it has already been stated that contraceptives are not 100% safe. So, Anonymous, are you saying that poor people should NEVER have sex because their contraceptives might break? And children are expensive?"

Basically. To do anything else would be asking me to encourage people to be irresponsible. I mean, would you be okay with someone getting 6 credit cards and putting themselves into incredible debt? I mean, just because someone is poor doesn't mean they can't have and do anything they want, right?

If you cannot afford something, you should not do it. Life is about taking responsibility for yourself.

Childhood is about someone else taking responsibility for you.

I'm very against grown adults acting like children, and expecting someone (the government) to bail them out of all their mistakes.

It's just sad that you rate the quality of your life and personal relationships and your happiness, based on sleeping with someone.Except it's not sleeping with someone, it's having a relationship based on mutual love, trust, respect - part of which intimacy contributes to.

If I were stupid enough to have a wife/long term partner and children, I would refuse to take any sort of paternity leave. It wouldn't do me any good at all.

Congratulations on making your own choice in this world. All we're asking for is the same, and to do so without the harassment and insult that comes with an ultrasound, as if pregnant woman don't realize there's a fetus inside of them.

If you cannot afford something, you should not do it. Life is about taking responsibility for yourself.Ok, I can't afford to have an ultrasound before I have my abortion. So I'm not going to do it. That's the responsible thing to do, isn't it?

"Except it's not sleeping with someone, it's having a relationship based on mutual love, trust, respect - part of which intimacy contributes to."

You talk about it based on sex, so, yeah, it's sleeping with someone.

Sex is not a relationship based on love trust and respect. It's about, you know, sex.

"Congratulations on making your own choice in this world. All we're asking for is the same, and to do so without the harassment and insult that comes with an ultrasound, as if pregnant woman don't realize there's a fetus inside of them."

You have the right to make a choice. Quit acting as though you don't.

Men, however, lack any choice when it comes to reproduction. So, really, I can't feel very bad that you have to "endure" a 10 minute ultrasound. Really can't. Sorry.

It just sounds as though you're afraid that if a woman sees the fetus, she'll realize it's not just some tumor to be removed, and it might make her not get an abortion.

"Ok, I can't afford to have an ultrasound before I have my abortion. So I'm not going to do it. That's the responsible thing to do, isn't it?"

No, the responsible thing would be to not have sex if you can't afford the consequences, period.

I will not sit here and say "Yeah, being irresponsible is totally alright". Can't do it.

I agree with anonymous... If you're pro-choice, you should take into consideration that in most cases (excluding rape - which is a topic that's already been argued on this blog if I remember correctly) you have a choice to have sex, to use the proper procautions against concieving in the first place.

I've had ultrasounds before, for reasons other than pregnancy, and ultrasounds are not that terrible. It's not something to be "endured" the only thing you have to deal with is having someone rub cold jelly stuff on your stomach while you have to pee.

No, the responsible thing would be to not have sex if you can't afford the consequences, period.

I will not sit here and say "Yeah, being irresponsible is totally alright". Can't do it.Couldn't have said it better.

Sex is not a relationship based on love trust and respect. It's about, you know, sex.

Another thing you aren't very positive about, much to your loss. If only you knew what you were missing out on.

Men, however, lack any choice when it comes to reproduction.

I thought everyone had the choice to just not have sex... I must have missed the memo where all men were stripped of their sexual choices (you'll notice here I'm using your method of equating sex with reproduction and not the more common opinion that sex and reproduction are two different things).

It just sounds as though you're afraid that if a woman sees the fetus, she'll realize it's not just some tumor to be removed, and it might make her not get an abortion.

News flash: People that protect the right to choose are not in it to see as many abortions as possible. We're in it to, you know, protect the right of choice - an informed, thought-out choice, not one given on half information and deliberately false information, like the touting of the breast cancer-abortion "link." (BS, by the way). Not one that's been emotionally played around with to lead someone to make a choice that's perhaps not logically the best one.

I trust that if a woman sees an ultrasound and decides not to have an abortion, that's her choice. However, I feel like the whole ultrasound issue is just a ploy by pro-life groups and politicians to promote a medically unnecessary procedure in order to convince women of their worldview - not to help the woman make the best choice for HER.

What happens if the father of the baby wants to keep said baby and raise it, even if it's without any help from the mother, but the woman doesn't want to go through with the pregnancy? Does the man get a say in the woman's choice?

"Another thing you aren't very positive about, much to your loss. If only you knew what you were missing out on."

Much to my loss? All I'm missing out on...is sex. Not much.

"I thought everyone had the choice to just not have sex... I must have missed the memo where all men were stripped of their sexual choices (you'll notice here I'm using your method of equating sex with reproduction and not the more common opinion that sex and reproduction are two different things)."

So, how come the "keep it in your pants" argument is fine to use against men, but one can't say "keep your legs closed" to a woman? Why the double standard?

"We're in it to, you know, protect the right of choice - an informed, thought-out choice, not one given on half information and deliberately false information, like the touting of the breast cancer-abortion "link." (BS, by the way). Not one that's been emotionally played around with to lead someone to make a choice that's perhaps not logically the best one."

Seeing the fetus would fall under being fully informed.

"See the difference?"

Not really. I can see where YOU see a difference, but you're placing opinion into it, and attempting to divine the intent of people that you can't be certain of.

"However, these decisions have to be made in MY best interest, not to be swayed or influenced by the agenda of a group of people who have no idea what my life is like."

Sorry, doesn't fly.

If your decisions are capable of being swayed or influenced by such things as seeing an ultrasound, then your mind wasn't made up in the first place, and actually, you didn't know your own mind as well as you claimed.

I can only say it so many times, if your mind is made up, and you are resolute, nothing will change it.

Apparently you think women are the stupid ones, if you believe an ultrasound would sway them.

Again, it just comes right back to you sounding afraid that women might not get abortions.

Though, I could say, your point of view is that people like you try to sway and influence others with your agenda.

Because women weren't aware in the first place that there was indeed a fetus inside of them?You may think women are stupid, but we're not that stupid.

Some women, namely those who get abortions, do not realize that what is inside of them is a life form, they just view it as a "problem that needs to be taken care of." By getting an ultrasound, it sends the message to the woman that it is in fact a human life and therefore would cause them to be less likely to have an abortion after seeing the fetus.

However, these decisions have to be made in MY best interest, not to be swayed or influenced by the agenda of a group of people who have no idea what my life is like.

I'm sorry your life is so difficult... boohoo, we all have problems, but at the same time, you have to accept the fact that in the world it's not all about YOU. Your decisions affect not only you, but those around you. Getting an abortion affects you, your body, the father, and the baby. It is not just something that affects you and only you.

Here's an analogy that might not be the best comparison, but it's what I came up with just now:

Say you go to dinner and have planned on getting a pasta plate. Once you get there, the waiter brings out a tray of steaks and says, "look at this steak. wouldn't you want to get a steak instead? the steak would taste muuuch better."

The point is that the waiter, the anti-choice groups, are trying to convince you to do something just because it fits into their worldview. Maybe the waiter is getting a cut from every steak she sells. The anti-choice groups are trying to talk you out of having an abortion. However, it's not allowing you to make the choice free from interference. Maybe you have bad heartburn so getting a steak for dinner will be worse off - but the waiter doesn't know that and just wants to sell you the steak.

Now I realize that the choice of ordering dinner or having an abortion are vastly different and depend on a lot of variables. But the main gist is the same - you're not making a choice based on what's best for you, the choice is influenced by someone else's agenda.

Do you want to know my agenda? That people are allowed to live their lives and make choices in their best interests.

I'm sorry your life is so difficult... boohoo, we all have problems, but at the same time, you have to accept the fact that in the world it's not all about YOU.Actually, my life IS all about me. That's why it's my life. I am the main character in my life, surprisingly. And I'm going to live however I please. That doesn't mean I live in a immoral vacuum, but that my life is influenced by those closest to me such as my family and friends, not the Religious Wrong.

"you're not making a choice based on what's best for you, the choice is influenced by someone else's agenda. "

Again, false.

You're being quite misogynist, really.

You're saying women are so stupid that they can be influenced by anything and anyone.

Also, it's just making you look like you fear that they might NOT get an abortion.

If someone can be talked out of it, they weren't certain to begin with, and might have regretted their choice.

You just seem (again) very personally invested in ensuring an abortion takes place.

"Do you want to know my agenda? That people are allowed to live their lives and make choices in their best interests. "

Right, and who are you to say what is in someone's best interest?

You want them to make choices that are in YOUR best interest. That's the main issue I see with many feminists. You're all for a woman's right to make choices, just as long as she makes the ones you approve of.

"and i'm sorry, but i have no sympathy for men who cry about child support. they can just join the growing ranks of all the deadbeat fathers out there."

Then I have no sympathy for women who cry about the cost of abortions, or cry about men not paying child support.

Door swings both ways.

"sometimes it's in the best interests of the women and the child to be a single parent if the father is going to be either a worthless deadbeat or abusive, which, let's face it, many of them are."

Generalizations are fun! If "many" men are deadbeats and abusive, I suppose I can say "many" women are unfaithful, and only interested in a man for his money, and are materialistic and shallow!

Actually, my life IS all about me. That's why it's my life. I am the main character in my life, surprisingly. And I'm going to live however I please. That doesn't mean I live in a immoral vacuum, but that my life is influenced by those closest to me such as my family and friends, not the Religious Wrong.

It's true that your life is about you, the point I was trying to make was that the world itself does not revolve around you and the actions you take and decisions you make affect those around you, and not just you personally.

look, my only point was that if a man doesn't want to pay for child support, he doesn't have to. the court may try to compel him, but very often this takes a long time and it is a deeply flawed system. if a man doesn't want to support his child or children, he can simply opt out. a woman doesn't have this option. i would think that potential deadbeats would be psyched to support a woman's right to choose. i support a woman's right to choose because i believe that an individual needs to have sovereignty over her/his own body.

You want them to make choices that are in YOUR best interest. That's the main issue I see with many feminists. You're all for a woman's right to make choices, just as long as she makes the ones you approve of.I know what's in my best interest just like someone else knows what's in their best interest. I never said otherwise.

You just seem (again) very personally invested in ensuring an abortion takes place.Then you are drastically misreading me. I'm personally invested in ensuring that women are allowed to make choices without someone harassing and insulting them. If they choose to have an abortion - their choice and I cannot judge. If they choose to have the child - their choice and I cannot judge.

"if a man doesn't want to support his child or children, he can simply opt out. a woman doesn't have this option. i would think that potential deadbeats would be psyched to support a woman's right to choose."

Men can't "opt out". Very few states allow a male to get out of child support by fully signing away his rights. Even after giving up his rights, he's still required to pay child support.

The government takes steps as far as garnishing his wages.

Women can "opt out" by getting an abortion, putting the child up for adoption, etcetera. If she chooses to keep it, the father, however, is screwed. He has no "choice", no option, nothing. He will be required to pay thousands of dollars over the next 18-21 years, and be forced to be a "father" completely against his will.

But, apparently, it's okay to force people to do things against their will if they're male.

"I know what's in my best interest just like someone else knows what's in their best interest. I never said otherwise."

Yes, but you're implying you know what's in the best interest of someone who is not you.

"they choose to have an abortion - their choice and I cannot judge. If they choose to have the child - their choice and I cannot judge."

But you're deeply against anything that might make them choose something besides an abortion, or at least appear to be.

Okay, okay, I refuse to leave Lindsay fending for herself against a lot of people who refuse to see anything relevant about feminism.

So I will chime in, even though she has stated my stand on things.

I am a feminist who believes that women should be able to make any choice when it comes to their reproductive lives, that is appropriate for them at the time.

That being said, out of fairness I believe that there needs to be unbiased, accurate information provided to women who are thinking of seeking abortions. There should be information about the costs of parenting, as well as the emotional costs that abortions can provide. Not one or the other. Both. That is the only way that women can really make completely informed and responsible decisions.

Forcing women to have ultrasounds is not an element of choice, which is what I propose. It is degrading to take that choice away from women. I think that there could be a real possibility for contentment for all parties if there was information on both sides provided for women EQUALLY and ACCURATELY. No scare tactics (which I would consider an ultrasound). No hidden agendas.

Amelia - I still don't understand how an ultrasound is a scare tactic... it's something you have to undergo for reasons other than pregnancy - they're medically ordered by some doctors. It's not a "scary" experience.

Yes, but you're implying you know what's in the best interest of someone who is not you.

Never anywhere have I done that. What I have said and will continue to say that it's a someone else's choice and that the choice should be made with their best interests in mind.

But you're deeply against anything that might make them choose something besides an abortion, or at least appear to be.Thank you for telling me what I believe, in fact, if you want to come on over to my house later, you can tell me what to have for dinner. Maybe if you're lucky, you'll get to tell me what reproductive decisions I should make.

If you would stop telling me what you think I believe, you would be able to hear me telling you what I believe - that women are smart and can make their own choices, and there is no place for my judgment anywhere in there.

But in pregnancies, ultrasounds ARE medically necessary. Taking control of the situation away from the woman would be scary.People give up control every day, whether it's in a medical procedure such as a surgery, or if it's flying on an airplane or even going to class. You cannot control everything in the world... does that make everything in the world that you cannot control "scary?"

At times her partner???? What about the rights of fathers? They should have some say in whether or not their child lives to see the light of day or if it is murdered before it has a chance to breathe.

I'm glad you bring up that point, Jezabel, because I was just thinking about that. When it comes to the rights of fathers, I would have to say this:

I say that fathers have rights as long as the intent of the relationship was to have a child. If people are married, or in a long term committed relationship, and they decide that they truly desire to have children, then yes, fathers have every right to help decide whether or not the woman goes through with the pregnancy, since that was the understanding to begin with.

But if two people are in a sexual relationship and there has been no previous discussion about whether or not to have children, and contraceptives fail and the woman becomes pregnant on accident, I feel that that is a different situation because there was no agreement beforehand that they both wanted children. Therefore, the woman should have full autonomy to decide whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.

But if two people are in a sexual relationship and there has been no previous discussion about whether or not to have children, and contraceptives fail and the woman becomes pregnant on accident, I feel that that is a different situation because there was no agreement beforehand that they both wanted children. Therefore, the woman should have full autonomy to decide whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term.

Even still, if the child is concieved on accident, and the father wants the child, why should the woman get to decide on her own not to have it? The man is still the father regardless of whether or not they are married or have previously discussed having children.

You, Jezabel, will never be able to convince me that a woman should have to go through a pregnancy that was unplanned just because a man wants her to. I can completely sympathize with men who were expecting a child with the woman they are with when the woman said that she too wanted a child, but if it is not explicitly stated that a child is in order, I find it cruel to suggest that a woman should be forced to do something against her will, something she never planned on going through in the first place.

"Oh, I'm so sorry! I forgot about the financial burden that men have when it comes to babies. God forbid we tread on man-territory."

Statements like this are why so many men find it so very hard to give one half of a damn about your issues. Because you demean and devalue ours, while claiming yours are FAR more important.

"We" don't say our interest is more important - hundreds of years of common law do.

The law privileges some interests over others, and bodily autonomy is a more important interest than property. This is why if I break a contract for personal services (say, painting your garage), the court will order me to pay you damages, if any, not to paint the garage myself (which the law considers somewhat similar to slavery.) There are only very few exceptions.

That's why the law doesn't force a woman to continue a pregnancy and go through childbirth but can order child support payments (and remember that both parents are responsible for supporting a born child.)

I'd suggest that any male who thinks imposing a vaginal ultrasound requirement on women for no medical cause is reasonable drink 6 glasses of water, wait an hour, and have a stranger stick a dildo in his rectum and poke his abdomen for awhile. Then we'll talk.

So requiring an ultrasound is a scare tactic used to keep women from getting a pregnancy...then isn't providing information about the cost of having a child a scare tactic to keep women from having the child? I think the impact of forcing them to read info about child care costs is much scarier and influential to a woman than making sure they're aware that there's something living inside of them, because in most...no, ALL cases, they already know that there's a baby inside of them.

As for the man not having a say in the life of his accidental child...it can be emotionally and psychologically dangerous for a man to be forced to let his child die just because the woman wants it to. I know a guy whose girlfriend refused to keep the baby they conceived together, even though he promised to take care of it on his own, without any help or money from her or her family. She went through with the abortion though, and he ended up refusing to ever have sex again (to keep the situation from happening again) and becoming really depressed about it, began self-mutilating, and eventually spending time in a mental ward and getting put on anti depressants.

Forcing women to have ultrasounds is more a scare tactic than providing information about all sides of the abortion debate (maybe you missed the part where I wasn't suggesting that people only provide women with one-sided information?).

And I stand by what I said about the rights of fathers because really, in the end, it is the woman who has to carry the child for 9 months. Not the man. And I believe that there are just as many emotional issues that can arise from a woman having to carry a child she did not want, just because the father wants one.

And I stand by what I said about the rights of fathers because really, in the end, it is the woman who has to carry the child for 9 months. Not the man. And I believe that there are just as many emotional issues that can arise from a woman having to carry a child she did not want, just because the father wants one.

The woman carries the child for 9 months, and the man pays for 18 years...

In case you missed it, Tyler (Goose), the point I was making about a father who wants a mother to keep the child when the mother doesn't want to. So yes. The father in such a case absolutely should be responsible to pay for the child's expenses for 18 years, because they were the parent that insisted on the woman carrying the pregnancy to term in the first place.

As for the man not having a say in the life of his accidental child...it can be emotionally and psychologically dangerous for a man to be forced to let his child die just because the woman wants it to. I know a guy whose girlfriend refused to keep the baby they conceived together, even though he promised to take care of it on his own, without any help or money from her or her family. She went through with the abortion though, and he ended up refusing to ever have sex again (to keep the situation from happening again) and becoming really depressed about it, began self-mutilating, and eventually spending time in a mental ward and getting put on anti depressants.

That was exactly my point, only without the personal example (thanks for that). The rights of fathers are overlooked in these cases, which can be damaging to the men themselves. There are a lot of great guys out there who are willing to raise a child regardless of what the woman wants to do about it. 9 months (although it is acutally less because women are not aware that they are pregnant from day 1) is a lot less pain than 18-21 years of the man having to pay: regardless of if it's child support or if its actually taking care of the child either on his own or with the mother.

well Aimee, I was referring to the situation of a parent having the child unwantedly... the exact opposite of the situation you were describing. If the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't its too bad because she has to suffer for 9 months. If she wants It and he does not though, he has to pay for alot longer than she does.

Correct me if I am wrong, Jezabel, but I believe that you are a pro-lifer, no?

You said:

9 months (although it is acutally less because women are not aware that they are pregnant from day 1) is a lot less pain than 18-21 years of the man having to pay: regardless of if it's child support or if its actually taking care of the child either on his own or with the mother.

I do not understand how you can support the right to life in all cases (again, correct me if I am wrong), but then come of saying that child care can be a "pain."

Yes I am a pro-lifer. More than anyone here could understand. I used the word "pain" for a reason. Since we're getting nitpicky, I'll explain it. I used "pain" because you seem to make it sound like that's what having a baby is. It is "pain" - it's not a joyful experience of bringing new life into this world. You seem to make it sound like a painful, tramautic experience that women are forced to endure. I did not use "pain" because that's what I believe. I used it more as sarcasm than anything else.

Thanks for clarifying, Jezabel. And I would like to clarify that I believe that I do not feel, whatsoever, that bringing a child into the world (a child that the mother is ready to care for - be that care adoption or whatever- and wants) is not a pain. That would probably be overwhelmingly joyful.

But if a woman is not allowed an abortion if she desires one, if she is made to carry a pregnancy to term because the father wants the baby that she did not want, yes, I see that as being a pain, as it would be emotionally distressing.

But aborting the baby would also cause an emotional pain to the father. He would be emotionally damaged if the baby were aborted because the mother didn't want him/her... as seen in the example Liz gave.

Okay, so it seems that either way, the unwillingly pregnant woman, or the non-father is going to be hurt.

So let's brainstorm about what to do about this problem. It's hard, and I think the central problem of the abortion debate lies within having to make judgment calls about whose pain, or whose life, is more important.

The problem with that is one of science vs. faith, I think. And that's a tough argument to settle in such simple terms. Science may say that a fetus is "viable" at one stage of pregnancy, but one's faith might say otherwise.

So your solution does not quite work, because not everyone believes the same things, and a faith-based argument will not hold in court...it's tricky.

Although I am a Christian, I do not get my stance on abortion from my faith. It doesn't matter what one thinks about faith and science. If you consider the baby what he/she is - A BABY - then the decision is a lot different. Because then the decision, even if the mother disagrees, affects not only the emotional state of the father, but the entire life/lack of life of the baby.

It's not a faith-based arguement that I'm making. It's a pro-baby arguement.

No one's saying these issues aren't sticky and complicated for everyone involved, but I think the pro-choice argument is that it's an invasion of the woman's privacy and of the sovereignty of her body.

In my opinion, the man can give his opinion, but I don't think his desire to have the child overrides that of the woman to not have the child. It's violating the woman's body and forcing her to do something she doesn't want to do - regardless of if the man wants to care for and support the child after it's been born. If he wants a child that badly, he can adopt one of the many children who are in need of homes.

I know you and I will disagree, but that's my opinion. To make exceptions would cast the matter into a gray area where it was decided case-by-case, meaning that some women would be forced to carry a child and others wouldn't. If the woman wants to carry it and give up parental rights to the father, fine. But I don't think she should have to do so just because he wants the baby.

Yeah... how about TRUE equality. As in BOTH sides are taken into account, and unless the mother will literally die from carrying a child for nine months, if the father will take complete responsibility, let him and the poor baby have a chance.

Also, Who is in pain? You yourself stated that "I believe that I do not feel, whatsoever, that bringing a child into the world (a child that the mother is ready to care for - be that care adoption or whatever- and wants) is not a pain. That would probably be overwhelmingly joyful."

So if it is joyful for the mother, and she has no added responsibility, why should the innocent life (or life-to-be as you may choose)not be given a chance?

Jezabel, I do believe that there is a lot of controversy in the abortion debate about when a fetus becomes a "life." That's what I was trying to say. It can't be proven in any absolute terms, so there will also be debate. So we need to come up with a solution that gets away from that, perhaps. Because we very well may never agree.

It's not a matter of WHEN. That should be irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that it will be a BABY. A living, breathing, giggling bundle of joy, that I believe you yourself said could be given up for adoption should the mother choose.

It seems unfair to deny the father the right to having his child due to the selfishness of the woman and the limitations of science. (Limitations of science meaning there is no known way to transfer a conceived child from the mother to another environment in which the baby can grow and be born)

It is relevant, though. Because if a fetus is not considered a "life" at conception (which is not widely believed as of now) then it is harder to argue effectively and completely for no abortions ever.

Because if it isn't a life yet, what's the big deal (that's putting it harshly, but I'm just saying, generally)?

The big deal is that if you let it chill there for awhile, it will become viable life. It is like if you said "oh, this mole isn't cancer yet so whats the big deal." Either way it should be treated as what it will develop into, not what it is now.

The fact of the matter is that upon conception, the mother is unaware of her pregnancy, and therefore cannot have an abortion while it is still deemed by science to not be a life form (with the exception of the morning after pill). Since the fetus is considered living by the time many abortions are preformed, that makes it completely different. A woman's own private medical decision kills an innocent, unborn child.

A fetal heartbeat can be detected at 6 weeks into the pregnancy. Considering the time it takes to miss a period, get a positive home pregnancy test, go to a doctor or clinic to get a more accurate pregnancy test to be sure, and get an appointment to have an abortion done...I'm pretty sure the baby will have a heartbeat by the time it is aborted.

what if the baby won't become a "giggling bundle of joy" upon delivery? a lot of things can happen during the course of a pregnancy and some babies won't survive upon delivery due to congenital birth defects or a whole host of other complications.should those women be made to carry the fetus until birth?and goose, i'm assuming that you've never been pregnant, is that correct?

and this whole "woman carries for nine months, men pays for eighteen years" thing seems a little simplistic as most mothers are primary caregivers meaning that they will be providing for the child financially as well as emotionally.

What of the fact that murder of an unborn child is prosecutable? more here... http://disagreeablyright.blogspot.com/2008/03/somebody-explain-to-me-how-are-all-of.html

Also, anon, It is called child support, or being the caregiver which was the situation being discussed at the time that comment was made (way to take it out of context though.) I know that some dads are truly deadbeats, but many are not.

Worldwide, only fifteen percent of pregnancies end in miscarriages, while 63% result in live births and 22% in abortion. Considering this is a worldwide statistic, and likely includes stats from third world countries to bring the average of live births down, I think it's safe to say that,in a developed country such as the United States, if abortion wasn't a choice, the pregnancy would be far more very likely to result in a child than a miscarriage.

I also prescribe to the idea that a fetus, a baby, is not truly "alive" until it can live outside of the womb. Think about it - everyone commenting here is considered "alive" beyond doubt. And we are all outside of our mothers' wombs.

I think it is the only way to get close to a for-sure answer to the question. No one questions our state of being alive, and we are all outside the womb. A lot of the options can be hotly debated. Actually, this one can be, too.

But let's keep the discussion going. And thanks everyone for keeping it relatively civil.

What I find hard to believe is that aproximately 1.3 million abortions take place each year in the United States, yet pro-choicers are frequently the ones complaining about the deaths that have happened in Iraq in the past few years. How is this not a double standard?

Amelia-At the same time, you have a heartbeat. Those on life support have a heartbeat. After six weeks a fetus has a heartbeat. A heartbeat is necessary to keep one alive. And therefore, since it is such a vital element of life, having a heartbeat should determine life.

But because the process of leaving the womb is necessary in order to live life as we humans know it, without that step being an option, I don't view a fetus as living.

So according to your arguement, one must make it thru "pre-life" in the womb in order to become living... does this mean that once cloning is achieved, clones will not be considered living because they did not experience the "pre-life" in the womb?

See the funny thing about fetuses, even ifyou don't consider them living now, the vast majority of them will at some point have that status if you let them, so why don't we. Even if we are not protecting life now, we are protecting life to be.

Okay... all the same - a fetus will, in most cases, bar a tragic miscarriage, become a human life... unless others step in to inhibit that. So why not give the baby a chance? Why not let another famliy who cannot have their own child be happy with a baby if you yourself do not want it?

I have a very serious question of all you pro-lifers reading this. Please listen, and please consider what I have to say, because I would love to make this a truly productive discussion.

The nature of this debate is over the value of lives (and could-be lives). Who should be valued at the time that the abortion could take place? The woman who is already assuredly living, or the fetus who COULD be living if left alone, perhaps against the already-living woman's will?

How can we move away from this debate and toward one that doesn't force us to make judgment calls over who is more important, mother or fetus?

I am just trying to see if you from the pro-life camp can help me think of a way to approach the abortion question that does not make us decide that the life of a fetus is more important than the life of the mother.

For example, you say that a fetus is a could-be life and should be allowed to live by staying in the womb.

But I could argue that a woman, who is already alive, could suffer greatly by having a pregnancy that she did not want.

It seems like we have to take sides - we're either pro-baby or pro-mother. I don't think it should have to be that way exactly, but I don't know how else to think about it. Do you have any ideas? Hope that's less confusing.

The dangers to the mother that you had mentioned so far is purely emotional. I know there are physical dangers to some women if they carry their pregnancy to full term.

I do understand where you are coming from with that.

However, I do not see how it is responsible to deem one persons life as having a higher value than someone else's. The way I see it, that's like having the option of killing the 60 year old grandmother or the 6 year old grandchild. The way pro-choicers view it, the grandmother would get priority over the child because she was here first. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's just how I see it - the mother is given preference because she was born first. However, if you think about it, the baby would not exist without the mother.

a lot of things can happen during the course of a pregnancy and some babies won't survive upon delivery due to congenital birth defects or a whole host of other complications.should those women be made to carry the fetus until birth?

I don't think the author's point here was to talk about "tragic miscarriages" but instead irreversible birth defects that will cause the child to die shortly after birth, or to live a very painful, very short existence. Isn't it more moral to not even bring the child into the world in the first place?

I'm not talking about Down's Syndrome or other things that can be detected before birth, but very severe, very painful complications such as being born without a skull or things like that. Things the child wouldn't survive anyway.

you have to be both- the welfare of the fetus and subsequent child depends on the health, safety and security of the mother.which is why the pro-life camp seems so inherently wrong to me because they often disparage the mother (calling her selfish) or belittle the work that goes into carrying a child to term ("pregnancy is only a minor discomfort", etc).

Honestly, Lindsay, I believe that with the way medical advancements are gong, every baby should have the right to be born. Because things can be done to keep them alive and better their quality of life. You cannot give up on a child just because the odds are bad - because there's always that chance that baby could survive, even if the odds are the equivelant of lighting striking a submarine.

You make some good points, and I would like to thank you for engaging in this discussion with me, Jezabel.

I also feel that the welfare of the mother greatly effects the welfare of the child born. If a mother has to go through an unwanted pregnancy, she would probably be emotionally unwell. Who is to say that she will be well enough to make a sound decision for the child she brought into the world?

Honestly, Lindsay, I believe that with the way medical advancements are gong, every baby should have the right to be born. Because things can be done to keep them alive and better their quality of life. You cannot give up on a child just because the odds are bad - because there's always that chance that baby could survive, even if the odds are the equivelant of lighting striking a submarine.

The situations I'm referring to aren't ones where the baby survives. The diseases or deformities are so severe that without modern medicine, the baby would die immediately, and with modern medicine, the baby would die very shortly. There is no, I repeat, no saving the child. There is no good quality of life for these children. Isn't it best to stop their suffering before it even starts?

I would disagree with the "whoever comes first" analogy. Both of those people were fully formed, living, breathing human beings with connections to the other life on Earth. A woman is also one of those beings, however a fetus is not a six-year old child. It is a cluster of cells with life potential. Life potential is not life and does not have the same value as existing life.

Also, most women who have abortions are already mothers, so they also have to take into consideration the well being and futures of their other children in addition to their personal concerns about carrying a pregnancy to term. What does this add to a debate that seems to be the life of a mother versus the potential of a fetus?

Amelia - I also feel that the welfare of the mother greatly effects the welfare of the child born. If a mother has to go through an unwanted pregnancy, she would probably be emotionally unwell. Who is to say that she will be well enough to make a sound decision for the child she brought into the world?

I agree, the mother's health does have a direct impact on the health of the child. However, making a decision between the two is a lot like picking favorites... and I believe that's just wrong.

Lindsay - The situations I'm referring to aren't ones where the baby survives. The diseases or deformities are so severe that without modern medicine, the baby would die immediately, and with modern medicine, the baby would die very shortly. There is no, I repeat, no saving the child. There is no good quality of life for these children. Isn't it best to stop their suffering before it even starts?

Like I said, the advancements in modern medicine are becoming greater and greater thus limiting what they cannot fix to a small amount of rare cases. I understand the point you are trying to make, however, in several cases the doctors have overestimated the chance of survival for children, and they have overestimated the severity of what the child has/would suffer from. By killing one of those children, it is indeed murdering someone who could have lived given the chance. Doctors make mistakes in judgement.

"It's violating the woman's body and forcing her to do something she doesn't want to do - regardless of if the man wants to care for and support the child after it's been born. If he wants a child that badly, he can adopt one of the many children who are in need of homes."

One could easily, easily say this in return:

It's violating the man's life and freedom, and forcing him to do something he doesn't want to do - regardless if the woman wants to care for and support the child after it's been born. If she wants a child that badly, she can adopt one of the many children who are in need of homes.

The argument goes both ways. If she keeps it, and he doesn't want it, no one cries that his personal freedoms and life are violated and intruded upon, nor the emotional and financial trauma he has to go through - he's just told he should have "kept it in his pants", despite the fact that feminists attack anyone who says "she should have kept her legs closed".

"I think once if something can survive outside of the womb, you can call it alive. If it won't survive outside the womb, why try to categorize it as life?"

I'm not even pro-life, and even I can call this argument intellectually dishonest.

Is it dead? The fetus is quite clearly alive. It's a living thing, and an abortion does in fact end it's life. To argue otherwise is to do what you seem so against: Give a woman getting an abortion false information.

Would you advocate telling them "It's okay to get an abortion, after all, the fetus isn't even alive yet!"?

That's a bit silly. Like I said, not pro-life one bit, but, come on. Be a bit more honest in your statements. Just because it can't live outside the womb doesn't make it not alive.

A tapeworm can't live outside your stomach, but it's pretty damn alive. Same with a cold virus. It can only survive outside the body for a very limited time, but it's clearly alive.

All that is necessary for life is oxygen, water, and caloric intake; not sex.

Sexual intercourse is a socially built up ritual that can imply deep psychological and emotional attachment, that can only be expressed in this manner.

Viruses are not alive; a living creature is defined as displaying homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. Viruses only exhibit 1 of these, reproduction. They are, however, certainly biological in nature.

Finally, an act's moral status is not determined by its status as natural.

List of things that occur in nature:

infanticidenurturing of youngabandonment of youngdeath at 30destruction of the weaksocietysocial bondinglearninganthraxSEXnonverbal communicationincestviolenceconsumption of meatcannibalismfeces

I'm not going to argue what is good or bad there, I think we all have our own opinions of what is and isn't. Point being morality is not determined by natural status. Generally what is right is that which gives the largest number of people most closely involved the choice that is nearest to their preference (yay relative preference utilitarianism)

Overall>>> 1. I think the impersonators(speaking in terms of professional logic), while making some errors in some of their premises, do reach correct conclusions. 2. Anonymous, you are a coward, and quite rude3. though I exhibited behavior as obnoxious as yours, in my initial reply. My jab at fundamental Christians was uncalled for, and I apologize to any and all who may have been offended.

I will have a post for you on my blog, you can find it here: http://theobsessiveinsomniac.blogspot.com/

Wouldn't you be really upset if you were a genius child with the potential to do great things if you were able to go to college and get a degree...but your parents REFUSED to let you go to school (even if there would be no financial or emotional burden for them)because you didn't already know quantum physics? They're taking away your opportunity to learn quantum physics just because you don't already know it and they think you'll be bad at it. Isn't it the same when a parent refuses to let a child live just because it isn't living already, and there's a chance (very small chance, btw) that it won't live

Julie, that happens quite a bit with super religious parents who restrict access to education to their children (especially girls). Check out what's happening now with the FLDS sect in Texas. It's unfortunate, but it happens. Some women will always opt to terminate a pregnancy. Do you have any concrete ideas of ways to prevent abortion?

Wouldn't you be really upset if you were a genius child with the potential to do great things if you were able to go to college and get a degree...but your parents REFUSED to let you go to school (even if there would be no financial or emotional burden for them)because you didn't already know quantum physics? They're taking away your opportunity to learn quantum physics just because you don't already know it and they think you'll be bad at it. Isn't it the same when a parent refuses to let a child live just because it isn't living already, and there's a chance (very small chance, btw) that it won't live

I think that your analogy is off, Julie, but you are trying to make a point, so I will continue this discussion, and I will try to be more careful about it.

First of all, I am not trying to argue that abortion should be legal based on the idea that not all fetuses will make it. I think that that is a weak argument.

And I kind of held back saying this last night when I was tired, but here goes.

Abortions will continue to happen whether or not they are legal. Women have always, and always will, work to control their reproductive lives. So why not make them legal, so they can be safe, clean, and regulated?

Also, I have a hard time swallowing anti-choice arguments because of the vast difference between life and life-potential. It's something I have been chewing on a lot lately.

"Abortions will continue to happen whether or not they are legal. Women have always, and always will, work to control their reproductive lives. So why not make them legal, so they can be safe, clean, and regulated?"

THANK YOU

My arguments obviously make me seem strictly pro-life, but this is the one thing that keeps me from claiming to be completely pro-life. I feel strongly that abortions should not be done, but I agree with you that there's no way to stop it from happening completely. It's best to keep it as safe as possible since it's going to happen, and that's why I'm not exactly for making it illegal. I am strongly in favor of educating women as much as possible to make sure they make the decision that they feel most comfortable with and won't think they'll regret.

It frustrates me beyond belief, though, that it took so long for any of the impersonators to make this argument. It's the first time any of them have made an argument that didn't appear to be based on opinion or facts that don't support them enough.

Actually, every argument I have made is one that I believe in (although in one instance, my wording was off to seem as though I had misspoken about facts, which I'm sorry for) equally as much. The Impersonators simply respond to particular arguments made by commenters with the parts that seem to make the most sense. I do not understand what makes you think that all of our arguments are based on opinion. I also have not seen many facts backing up the arguments made on the other side, either, just to be fair.

I have also said that I am for education - education from both sides, presented in a non-threatening, non-persuasive manner, because I believe that for a woman to truly make a free "choice" she must have information...but not only one side of the information.